Carl Lawson posts cryptic tweet

[The D.O.Z.]

Let's say we DON'T tag or sign Lawson and let him test the market. What's this FA class look like on Edge defenders? If Lawson is going to command 15million+ per, is there going to be another FA out there of equal or better value? A guy who might get you 8 sacks in a rotation while staying healthy AND can also play the run? I like Carl, but he's not worth overpaying for if you can bring in a guy who does what he does for 8-10million per. [emoji2369]

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 03:34 PM)The D.O.Z. Wrote: Let's say we DON'T tag or sign Lawson and let him test the market. What's this FA class look like on Edge defenders? If Lawson is going to command 15million+ per, is there going to be another FA out there of equal or better value? A guy who might get you 8 sacks in a rotation while staying healthy AND can also play the run? I like Carl, but he's not worth overpaying for if you can bring in a guy who does what he does for 8-10million per. [emoji2369]

In order to believe this then you have to say that the Bengals scouts and front office are smarter than all the other teams.

How else would they be able to sign a superior player at below market value?

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 03:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Correct. With a rookie QB, behind a bad offensive line and a running game that was mostly MIA. 

I wonder how bad it would look without Burrow. Wait...

I do expect it to improve this year. 

I don't want this to look like I am bashing Burrow.

All I am saying is that you can't say Jackson and Lawson are not good players because the entire defense was bad.  And you can't say that letting them walk won't make the defense worse.

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-26-2021, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't want this to look like I am bashing Burrow.

All I am saying is that you can't say Jackson and Lawson are not good players because the entire defense was bad.  And you can't say that letting them walk won't make the defense worse.

I wouldn't say that. I think they're both good players, though i can't say i've sat down, looked at the numbers and decided how much i thought they were worth. 

[samhain]

(02-19-2021, 11:49 AM)PDub80 Wrote: I am indifferent towards Lawson. Sorry, I just am. I would rather the Bengals get the offense to an elite level before investing in the defense, so a half measure spent on the defensive side of the ball (meaning: 1 big money guy) isn'tgoing to get the D over the humo. The offense is much closer to elite than the defense. Finish that and then put defensive pieces in place next year. Hell, a great offense makes thw defense job so much easier, anyway. Would like to see what the talent that is already on the roster can do behind an offense that scores and sustains drives.

All things considered, if they HAD to spend on the defense this season, IMO, the money would be better spent on WJ3.

I'm with you.  It's pretty apparent that keeping Lawson means shelling out top tier DE money, either through the tag for 1 year or through a fat long-term deal.  If the team is going to be forced to spend like that, then why not go after a guy like Barrett that has the ability and the numbers to justify the deal?  

Also agree about building the offense now.  There are too many areas of need to address in 1 season.  Get the OL in order, find a weapon or 2, then proceed to the season hoping Burrow is ready week 1.  

I'd let Jackson walk and see if Phillips can stay healthy opposite Waynes on the boundary.  He's been steadily improving and capable when given the chance to play.  If that doesn't work out, then go heavy of the defense in next year's draft to compliment the offense you built in 2021.  See if Anarumo can win with what he has.  If he does, then he's a keeper, if not, then grab a new DC after the season.

[QueenCity]

(02-28-2021, 10:44 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm with you.  It's pretty apparent that keeping Lawson means shelling out top tier DE money, either through the tag for 1 year or through a fat long-term deal.  If the team is going to be forced to spend like that, then why not go after a guy like Barrett that has the ability and the numbers to justify the deal?  

Also agree about building the offense now.  There are too many areas of need to address in 1 season.  Get the OL in order, find a weapon or 2, then proceed to the season hoping Burrow is ready week 1.  

I'd let Jackson walk and see if Phillips can stay healthy opposite Waynes on the boundary.  He's been steadily improving and capable when given the chance to play.  If that doesn't work out, then go heavy of the defense in next year's draft to compliment the offense you built in 2021.  See if Anarumo can win with what he has.  If he does, then he's a keeper, if not, then grab a new DC after the season.

I like this take..... lets build an elite offense and let the D pieces fall into place after.

[PDub80]

(02-28-2021, 10:44 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm with you.  It's pretty apparent that keeping Lawson means shelling out top tier DE money, either through the tag for 1 year or through a fat long-term deal.  If the team is going to be forced to spend like that, then why not go after a guy like Barrett that has the ability and the numbers to justify the deal?  

Also agree about building the offense now.  There are too many areas of need to address in 1 season.  Get the OL in order, find a weapon or 2, then proceed to the season hoping Burrow is ready week 1.  

I'd let Jackson walk and see if Phillips can stay healthy opposite Waynes on the boundary.  He's been steadily improving and capable when given the chance to play.  If that doesn't work out, then go heavy of the defense in next year's draft to compliment the offense you built in 2021.  See if Anarumo can win with what he has.  If he does, then he's a keeper, if not, then grab a new DC after the season.

(02-28-2021, 12:26 PM)QueenCity Wrote: I like this take..... lets build an elite offense and let the D pieces fall into place after.

It was either the Locked On Bengals podcast or Hear That Podcast Growlin that studied games between the #1 D vs #1 Offense to see if there was a pattern or trend in the outcomes. They found that year back, it used to be that the #1 D would beat the best offense. But, a few years ago, with all of the rule changes that favor the offense, that has since been flipped. To win in the NFL, offense typically carries the day and you just need a competent D to win a lot of games, or even the Superbowl. A great offense makes an OK defense look good.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(02-26-2021, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The league leader in sacks probably gets a little over one a game.  It is pretty silly to judge a players entire worth on one play per game when teams average 60-70 snaps per game.

You make some good arguments.  I don't want to turn this thread into a "Burrow vs. Lawson" thread so I won't even go there.  I just want to say that I love me some Carl Lawson.  He is an exciting young player.  Buuuut...I just can't wrap my head around how Carlos Dunlap had more sacks in 2020 than Lawson did, how Lawson has been chronically injured, how he doesn't have elite production over his rookie contract, but yet he's going to get paid elite money this offseason somehow.  Is he really a better value than the best pass rusher on the market at that price tag?  Is he really better than two pass rushers at half of that price tag?  I know that I don't have all of his pressure tape and all of his run fit tape and this and that in front of me to look at and analyze, it just seems excessive for him.  Prior to this season I had thought of him as the "DE3" on like the best roster in the league.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-01-2021, 05:07 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: You make some good arguments.  I don't want to turn this thread into a "Burrow vs. Lawson" thread so I won't even go there.  I just want to say that I love me some Carl Lawson.  He is an exciting young player.  Buuuut...I just can't wrap my head around how Carlos Dunlap had more sacks in 2020 than Lawson did, how Lawson has been chronically injured, how he doesn't have elite production over his rookie contract, but yet he's going to get paid elite money this offseason somehow.  Is he really a better value than the best pass rusher on the market at that price tag?  Is he really better than two pass rushers at half of that price tag?  I know that I don't have all of his pressure tape and all of his run fit tape and this and that in front of me to look at and analyze, it just seems excessive for him.  Prior to this season I had thought of him as the "DE3" on like the best roster in the league.  

Last season Clowney got 1yr/$13m after only having 3 sacks (but being rated as elite by PFF with a 87.3 grade) in 2019 and he has historically been more productive (and a full time player) compared to Lawson. Seeing a guy with even less results than Clowney and paying him even more based off "almost sacks" is a terrible idea.

The Seahawks ignored the advanced metrics rating in favor of reality, let him walk in FA, the Titans gave him $13m and he ended up with 0 sacks (but still somehow was rated PFF's 19th rated edge rusher).

You're right to be hesitant.

[Au165]

(03-03-2021, 12:02 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Last season Clowney got 1yr/$13m after only having 3 sacks (but being rated as elite by PFF with a 87.3 grade) in 2019 and he has historically been more productive (and a full time player) compared to Lawson. Seeing a guy with even less results than Clowney and paying him even more based off "almost sacks" is a terrible idea.

The Seahawks ignored the advanced metrics rating in favor of reality, let him walk in FA, the Titans gave him $13m and he ended up with 0 sacks (but still somehow was rated PFF's 19th rated edge rusher).

You're right to be hesitant.

Because sacks are a fan friendly stat but one that doesn’t actually mean much. It doesn’t mean they even really won their matchup just that they were the last guy to touch the QB before he went down, or even ran out of bounds behind the LoS.

Some of the advanced stuff that looks at how guys get sacks is really interesting. There are some guys, take Maxx Crosby a couple years ago, who actually rarely ever won the match up but instead QBs ran into him at an insanely high rate or he actually would get blocked into the QB. That’s why people tend to like “win rate” as the fact the QB may run away from the pass rusher to the weaker rusher side doesn’t mean the player didn’t do their job.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2021, 12:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: Because sacks are a fan friendly stat but one that doesn’t actually mean much. It doesn’t mean they even really won their matchup just that they were the last guy to touch the QB before he went down, or even ran out of bounds behind the LoS.

Some of the advanced stuff that looks at how guys get sacks is really interesting. There are some guys, take Maxx Crosby a couple years ago, who actually rarely ever won the match up but instead QBs ran into him at an insanely high rate or he actually would get blocked into the QB. That’s why people tend to like “win rate” as the fact the QB may run away from the pass rusher to the weaker rusher side doesn’t mean the player didn’t do their job.

Um, it means a ton if you care about your defense stopping offenses and giving your offense the ball. Can't find the reddit thing I was reading about it, but they looked at a whole season's worth of sacks (something like over 1,100).

Well over 80% of drives with a sack don't get a first down after the sack.

If the sack is for a bigger loss than 5 yards, that number goes up to almost 90%

Sacks are absolute drive killers, yet Lawson only has 11.5 sacks in the 3 years since his rookie year, and just 2 in the 12 games since he became the starter. There's a reason why people pay for that "fan friendly stat" and it's not because ti doesn't actually mean much.

Win rate is just the NFL version of FIP. Trying to assign what-could-have-beens and what-should-have-beens to players instead of accepting the reality of what did. Should-have-beens and could-have-beens don't win games. You "win" your pass rush but the QB still throws a TD down the field because you didn't take him down, you didn't actually "win" your pass rush.

[Au165]

(03-03-2021, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Um, it means a ton if you care about your defense stopping offenses and giving your offense the ball. Can't find the reddit thing I was reading about it, but they looked at a whole season's worth of sacks (something like over 1,100).

Well over 80% of drives with a sack don't get a first down after the sack.

If the sack is for a bigger loss than 5 yards, that number goes up to almost 90%

Sacks are absolute drive killers, yet Lawson only has 11.5 sacks in the 3 years since his rookie year, and just 2 in the 12 games since he became the starter. There's a reason why people pay for that "fan friendly stat" and it's not because ti doesn't actually mean much.

Win rate is just the NFL version of FIP. Trying to assign what-could-have-beens and what-should-have-beens to players instead of accepting the reality of what did. Should-have-beens and could-have-beens don't win games. You "win" your pass rush but the QB still throws a TD down the field because you didn't take him down, you didn't actually "win" your pass rush.

Not sure about your Reddit thing, but no one who follows analytics believes sacks are nearly as valuable as fans think. All your anecdotal numbers are nice, now show me the same numbers but replace sacks with TFL. Relying on sacks again fails to account for value generated by pressure, a throw away because of pressure is a win. An errant throw because of pressure resulting in an interception is actually a more valuable play than a sack except on 4th down or a sack fumble. As I already mentioned, the biggest issue is it doesn’t mean you actually did anything only that you were the same place the QB was at the end of a play.

This is pretty much universally accepted in the new age of football statistics. Sacks aren't an important individual statistic but one that is easily quantifiable to fans so it remains front and center. That doesn’t even begin to go into double team rate as it relates to pass rush wins. Valuing defensive linemen is tough, but falling back to sacks is lazy.

[Au165]

(03-03-2021, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Um, it means a ton if you care about your defense stopping offenses and giving your offense the ball. Can't find the reddit thing I was reading about it, but they looked at a whole season's worth of sacks (something like over 1,100).

Well over 80% of drives with a sack don't get a first down after the sack.

If the sack is for a bigger loss than 5 yards, that number goes up to almost 90%

Sacks are absolute drive killers, yet Lawson only has 11.5 sacks in the 3 years since his rookie year, and just 2 in the 12 games since he became the starter. There's a reason why people pay for that "fan friendly stat" and it's not because ti doesn't actually mean much.

Win rate is just the NFL version of FIP. Trying to assign what-could-have-beens and what-should-have-beens to players instead of accepting the reality of what did. Should-have-beens and could-have-beens don't win games. You "win" your pass rush but the QB still throws a TD down the field because you didn't take him down, you didn't actually "win" your pass rush.

Not sure about your Reddit thing, but no one who follows analytics believes sacks are nearly as valuable as fans think. All your anecdotal numbers are nice, now show me the same numbers but replace sacks with TFL. Relying on sacks again fails to account for value generated by pressure, a throw away because of pressure is a win. An errant throw because of pressure is actually a more valuable play than a sack except on 4th down or a sack fumble. As I already mentioned, the biggest issue is it doesn’t mean you actually did anything only that you were the same place the QB was at the end of a play.

This is pretty much universally to be accepted in the new age of football statistics. Sacks are not this all important stat and there is plenty of data to back it up. You mentioned Clowney and the Seahawks, while he didn’t account for massive sack numbers their defensive analytics did regress so badly they had to go get Dunlap mid year because they couldn’t generate the pressures that Clowney did that resulted in negative plays.

Sacks are a function of winning reps but also of poor QB play, great coverage, and some times luck. That is why pass rush win rate is a better indicator of skill and why it’s more readily used in evaluation that a stat like sacks. You can only win the rep in front of you, if you beat a guy in 2 seconds and sack a guy and the guy across you wins his in 5 but Sam Darnold won’t throw the ball away and let’s you sack him they were not equal in the talent required to achieve them (this was Maxx Crosby) which is why sacks aren’t really meaningful.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2021, 01:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: Not sure about your Reddit thing, but no one who follows analytics believes sacks are nearly as valuable as fans think. All your anecdotal numbers are nice,  now show me the same numbers but replace sacks with TFL. Relying on sacks again fails to account for value generated by pressure, a throw away because of pressure is a win. An errant throw because of pressure is actually a more valuable play than a sack except on 4th down or a sack fumble. As I already mentioned, the biggest issue is it doesn’t mean you actually did anything only that you were the same place the QB was at the end of a play.

This is pretty much universally to be accepted in the new age of football statistics. Sacks are not this all important stat and there is plenty of data to back it up. You mentioned Clowney and the Seahawks, while he didn’t account for massive sack numbers their defensive analytics did regress so badly they had to go get Dunlap mid year because they couldn’t generate the pressures that Clowney did that resulted in negative plays.

Sacks are a function of winning reps but also of poor QB play, great coverage, and some times luck. That is why pass rush win rate is a better indicator of skill and why it’s more readily used in evaluation that a stat like sacks. You can only win the rep in front of you, if you beat a guy in 2 seconds and sack a guy and the guy across you wins his in 5 but Sam Darnold won’t throw the ball away and let’s you sack him they were not equal in the talent required to achieve them (this was Maxx Crosby) which is why sacks aren’t really meaningful.

You keep shitting on Maxx Crosby for some reason, but at the end of the day...

2019-2020
Crosby: 86 tackles, 4 FF, 5 Pdef, 17.0 sacks, 30 TFL
Lawson: 59 tackles, 2 FF, 0 Pdef, 10.5 sacks, 10 TFL

Yet the first was ranked 83rd by PFF and the second was ranked 14th. That is proof that there is clearly a problem with the analytics and system.

It's funny because you mentioned TFL, but Lawson has only 11 of those in the last 3 years. He doesn't get TFL, he doesn't get Sacks, he doesn't get Pdef, he doesn't get FF, and he doesn't even get tackles.

But boy howdy does he "win". Sure those "wins" don't actually produce anything, but that lack of production is glorious. You take the guy who produces nothing tangible and I will take the guy who is statistically superior in every tangible way.

- - - - - - -
As for the Seahawks, they regressed so much without Clowney's whopping 3 sacks that they actually got to the QB much better? 

2018: 12th in sacks without Clowney 
2019: 31st in sacks with Clowney
2020: 7th in sacks without Clowney

But hey, he "won" or something.

[Au165]

(03-03-2021, 01:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You keep shitting on Maxx Crosby for some reason, but at the end of the day...

2019-2020
Crosby: 86 tackles, 4 FF, 5 Pdef, 17.0 sacks, 30 TFL
Lawson: 59 tackles, 2 FF, 0 Pdef, 10.5 sacks, 10 TFL

Yet the first was ranked 83rd by PFF and the second was ranked 14th. That is proof that there is clearly a problem with the analytics and system.

It's funny because you mentioned TFL, but Lawson has only 11 of those in the last 3 years. He doesn't get TFL, he doesn't get Sacks, he doesn't get Pdef, he doesn't get FF, and he doesn't even get tackles.

But boy howdy does he "win". Sure those "wins" don't actually produce anything, but that lack of production is glorious. You take the guy who produces nothing tangible and I will take the guy who is statistically superior in every tangible way.

- - - - - - -
As for the Seahawks, they regressed so much without Clowney's whopping 3 sacks that they actually got to the QB much better? 

2018: 12th in sacks without Clowney 
2019: 31st in sacks with Clowney
2020: 7th in sacks without Clowney

But hey, he "won" or something.

At the end of the day, no one in the NFL thinks Maxx Crosby is in the same world as Carl Lawson, why is that then? Oh right, that's because there is more to a defensive end than the 2.5% or so times they get credited with a sack on pass rush reps. The other 97.5% of their time matters too and you see generating pressures, hurries, hits, and throwaways all have value. Crosby gets brought up because his rookie year had gaudy sack numbers but outside of that, he wasn't much of a factor in the passing game. If a QB throws the ball away or throws an errant pass on 3rd down the result is almost the same as a sack. Arguing that the loss of yards matters would mean we need to value sacks differently, for instance when a guy gets tackled right at the line of scrimmage versus 10 yards back, but you aren't and we don't hence another reason just saying "sacks" doesn't frame their value. 

I brought up TFL, not because of Lawson but to show again that your stats about what happens after a sack and how "important" they are is cherry-picking. TFL is the same result as a sack, a negative play, and loss of down, yet you have constantly harped on sack totals. TFL should be looked at like sacks in terms of mattering but also like sacks can be misleading. Unforced negative runs by backs don't make the defender better just because a back tried to reverse field instead of taking the 1 yard gain. 

To your "win's don't produce anything" that is really the worst of all arguments. Sacks as an outcome are great, and this is where you are getting hung up. The idea of a sack is a positive thing, however, who is credited doesn't translate. I mentioned before a QB who runs out of bounds is sacked and if a DE gets a finger on him around the time he does he gets a sack. That QB should have thrown the ball away rather than go out of bounds (looking at you Derek Carr), so why do we want to give the DE who was blocked too long and never forced him out of the pocket any recognition for going over and touching a QB with one hand that happened to be the first one to get to a guy who made a bad play? The same thing goes for when a QB runs out of a clean pocket into the back of his own lineman and basically gets sacked by his own guy, why credit the defender who didn't actually win the rep? If a team rolls away from you, and you blow your guy up and chase the QB into that lineman you are the one who actually created the negative play, hence why we value winning a rep over simply looking at outcomes 

We are starting to do this same thing on offense now as we have seen them evolve into these college-based offenses. A QB who does a pop pass to a WR on a jet motion gets credited with a completion. If that WR takes it 90 yards and scores a TD that QB also gets credited with 90 yards and a TD, did the QB actually add any value? The answer is no. We have to look past the box score numbers and better understand players' roles in plays and how much they actually had to do with the outcomes.

Again, this isn't even a debate as it is universally understood inside the league. No one in the NFL thinks Maxx Crosby is better than Carl Lawson, no matter the sack totals. No one in the NFL thinks sacks are all that important in evaluating players' skill, especially compared to total pressures. Relying on outcomes versus looking at how those outcomes occur is for fans, not for personal people. FA is about paying for skill, winning reps is more indicative of skill than simply being credited for a single type of play that you may or may not have had much to do with.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-03-2021, 09:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: At the end of the day, no one in the NFL thinks Maxx Crosby is in the same world as Carl Lawson, why is that then? Oh right, that's because there is more to a defensive end than the 2.5% or so times they get credited with a sack on pass rush reps. The other 97.5% of their time matters too and you see generating pressures, hurries, hits, and throwaways all have value. Crosby gets brought up because his rookie year had gaudy sack numbers but outside of that, he wasn't much of a factor in the passing game. If a QB throws the ball away or throws an errant pass on 3rd down the result is almost the same as a sack. Arguing that the loss of yards matters would mean we need to value sacks differently, for instance when a guy gets tackled right at the line of scrimmage versus 10 yards back, but you aren't and we don't hence another reason just saying "sacks" doesn't frame their value. 

I brought up TFL, not because of Lawson but to show again that your stats about what happens after a sack and how "important" they are is cherry-picking. TFL is the same result as a sack, a negative play, and loss of down, yet you have constantly harped on sack totals. TFL should be looked at like sacks in terms of mattering but also like sacks can be misleading. Unforced negative runs by backs don't make the defender better just because a back tried to reverse field instead of taking the 1 yard gain. 

To your "win's don't produce anything" that is really the worst of all arguments. Sacks as an outcome are great, and this is where you are getting hung up. The idea of a sack is a positive thing, however, who is credited doesn't translate. I mentioned before a QB who runs out of bounds is sacked and if a DE gets a finger on him around the time he does he gets a sack. That QB should have thrown the ball away rather than go out of bounds (looking at you Derek Carr), so why do we want to give the DE who was blocked too long and never forced him out of the pocket any recognition for going over and touching a QB with one hand that happened to be the first one to get to a guy who made a bad play? The same thing goes for when a QB runs out of a clean pocket into the back of his own lineman and basically gets sacked by his own guy, why credit the defender who didn't actually win the rep? If a team rolls away from you, and you blow your guy up and chase the QB into that lineman you are the one who actually created the negative play, hence why we value winning a rep over simply looking at outcomes 

We are starting to do this same thing on offense now as we have seen them evolve into these college-based offenses. A QB who does a pop pass to a WR on a jet motion gets credited with a completion. If that WR takes it 90 yards and scores a TD that QB also gets credited with 90 yards and a TD, did the QB actually add any value? The answer is no. We have to look past the box score numbers and better understand players' roles in plays and how much they actually had to do with the outcomes.

Again, this isn't even a debate as it is universally understood inside the league. No one in the NFL thinks Maxx Crosby is better than Carl Lawson, no matter the sack totals. No one in the NFL thinks sacks are all that important in evaluating players' skill, especially compared to total pressures. Relying on outcomes versus looking at how those outcomes occur is for fans, not for personal people. FA is about paying for skill, winning reps is more indicative of skill than simply being credited for a single type of play that you may or may not have had much to do with.

Great post, there is so much more to Lawson than just the sack totals and TFL's. He can constantly collapse a pocket and get
pressures. He is one of the best at this in the NFL. Bring him back is my vote, Lawson is not the reason we were last in sacks 
last season. The other players were and the injuries to our DT's were devastating.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 01:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: But boy howdy does he "win". Sure those "wins" don't actually produce anything, but that lack of production is glorious. You take the guy who produces nothing tangible and I will take the guy who is statistically superior in every tangible way.

Pressure on the QB is tangible.  Multiple sites have comparisons that show how pressure effects a QBs numbers.

If you don't think pressure on a QB produces anything then you are completely clueless about football.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2021, 03:09 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Great post, there is so much more to Lawson than just the sack totals and TFL's. He can constantly collapse a pocket and get
pressures. He is one of the best at this in the NFL. Bring him back is my vote, Lawson is not the reason we were last in sacks 
last season. The other players were and the injuries to our DT's were devastating.

I just have the feeling that this is FIP/xFIP vs ERA/ERA+/WHIP all over again, making Carl Lawson be Homer Bailey.

[*bengalfan74*]

(03-03-2021, 12:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: Because sacks are a fan friendly stat but one that doesn’t actually mean much. It doesn’t mean they even really won their matchup just that they were the last guy to touch the QB before he went down, or even ran out of bounds behind the LoS.

Some of the advanced stuff that looks at how guys get sacks is really interesting. There are some guys, take Maxx Crosby a couple years ago, who actually rarely ever won the match up but instead QBs ran into him at an insanely high rate or he actually would get blocked into the QB. That’s why people tend to like “win rate” as the fact the QB may run away from the pass rusher to the weaker rusher side doesn’t mean the player didn’t do their job.

(03-03-2021, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Um, it means a ton if you care about your defense stopping offenses and giving your offense the ball. Can't find the reddit thing I was reading about it, but they looked at a whole season's worth of sacks (something like over 1,100).

Well over 80% of drives with a sack don't get a first down after the sack.

If the sack is for a bigger loss than 5 yards, that number goes up to almost 90%

Sacks are absolute drive killers, yet Lawson only has 11.5 sacks in the 3 years since his rookie year, and just 2 in the 12 games since he became the starter. There's a reason why people pay for that "fan friendly stat" and it's not because ti doesn't actually mean much.

Win rate is just the NFL version of FIP. Trying to assign what-could-have-beens and what-should-have-beens to players instead of accepting the reality of what did. Should-have-beens and could-have-beens don't win games. You "win" your pass rush but the QB still throws a TD down the field because you didn't take him down, you didn't actually "win" your pass rush.

I don't believe stats are ever the know all tell all. You mention baseball stats/analytics LL and that's always been my go to example to illustrate my point. 

You look at a baseball game stat sheet and player A went 3 for 4 with 2 RBI's. Sweet he had a good game really tattooing the ball right ? But in reality the 1st hit was a swinging bunt down the 3rd base line against the shift. The 2nd hit was a routine grounder to short that the SS booted and even the announcers were surprised they gave him a hit. The 3rd was a little nubber off the top of the bat pop up that just barely made it over the 2nd basemans glove and there were two outs and the base runners took off on contact giving the 2 RBI's.

That's I believe what AU is saying ?

Am I saying Lawson is top tier and needs paid top money ? NO But if they can bring him back for reasonable money that isn't like top 3-5 range I wouldn't be upset. 

But there's the problem huh ? Some team is about always willing to overpay in free agency.

[Whatever]

(03-03-2021, 11:27 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I just have the feeling that this is FIP/xFIP vs ERA/ERA+/WHIP all over again, making Carl Lawson be Homer Bailey.

My big concern is injuries.  He had major knee and hip injuries in college.  He came in as a rookie and had no problem finishing plays and getting sacks.  He tore his other ACL in year 2 and in the two years since, he can generate pressure, but can't finish.  It begs the question as to if another major injury will make him lose another step and make him totally ineffective as a pass rusher.  

Ultimately, I think this is another case of a good player on a bad team being pumped up to be better than he actually is.